All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 17, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:54
515 The History Of Religion Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. It's 10 to 5.
Ooh, look out! I got out of work a little bit early.
Hope you're doing well. It's time for us to plummet on with the history of religion, or the genesis of the gods, so to speak.
And so we'll plunge right in, if you don't mind.
This is something I've mentioned briefly before on this show, but it's probably worth having a chat about it again, because for the YouTubers who haven't plunged through all 515 or so of these, a brief review might be in order, as it also might be for those who have plunged through, because it's been a while.
Now, the way that tribal domination works in primates is based on physical strength and size.
And this, of course, is distinctly satisfying to those who are big and strong, and distinctly unsatisfying to those who are not so much with the bigness and the strength.
Now, one of the things that occurs naturally in the natural decay of life is that we all start off weak and helpless, and as Shakespeare points out in his seven stages, we wax in power and then we wane in power.
So what happens, of course, is that as you get older, you get feeble and weak.
Again, life is a big circle from weakness to strength to weakness.
This is of course distinctly unsatisfying for the leaders who like power and who have themselves set up a system by which they could have few complaints if those who were weaker,
as they grew stronger relative to the older people, they could really logically have very few complaints if It turned out that the weaker among them ended up wanting to be stronger and wanting to dominate them, right? So this is a paradigm with the parenting, of course, which is where it comes from fundamentally.
But when you are a child, your parents very often will treat you with less than stellar and full respect, let's just say as nicely as we can, let's put it that way.
So, of course, the basic premise there is that the strong dominate the weak, but of course life is a constant state of flux, and therefore when your parents themselves get old, it seems that it would be tough for them to argue against the fact that you are now in the prime of your life and they are becoming old and enfeebled, that you should not dominate them in the way that they dominated you when you were children.
Now, what does this have to do with religion, you might ask?
And well, might you ask, but it actually does, right?
So what happens is those who are in power are constantly going to want to keep the risk of power to a minimum.
And so they're going to do their very level-headed best to make sure that power is not associated solely with physical strength.
Because even if you're the strongest guy in the village, your kid, or strongest guy in the tribe, you're like the alpha silverback or something, your kid might not be as strong as you are.
You might be just some freak who happened to be sort of this Arnold Schwarzenegger fellow, and your kid might not be.
But you want to make sure that your kid gets to maintain the same leadership state that you have enjoyed, lo, these many years, and also yourself, in your own decline.
You do not want to be preyed upon in the same manner that you preyed upon others.
So the grave danger of leadership is the problem of the reciprocity of brutality.
This is the grave danger.
Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
Well, precious few of them do, which is one of the reasons why leadership is such a profitable game in the world throughout history and even more so today with the astounding wealth that can be stripped from taxpayers without even having to lift a finger.
Just through the printing presses of the money supply and so on.
But that is really the grave danger.
How do you set up a system in society wherein you get to dominate in a unidirectional, non-reciprocal kind of manner?
So you get to dominate and nobody gets to dominate you.
But it can't be based on physical strength because physical strength declines with age.
It can't really be based on genetics.
Lineage is sort of important, but lineage, everybody has children.
It has to be something that's unique, right?
Everybody has children, so saying that my children should be rulers just as I was a ruler is not something that is particularly believable, just because.
The whole problem in society is that the whole sort of complex, ugly, assorted, swamp-like mess of philosophy throughout the ages It's all predicated on the fact that nobody likes to say, just cause, right?
Why did we invade Iraq?
Just cause. Everybody has to have a reason, right?
Everybody has to have a reason.
And so here, we begin to see that there is a uniting of the groups that we talked about this morning.
Not listening out of sequence, are you?
No? No?
Okay. I'm glad.
Thank you. Because I can't do them out of sequence, so I hate it when people listen out of sequence, but you are free, as the saying goes.
So... But as the questions, and who knows when, right?
As the questions begin to arise in the human mind, there's a famous example of this, or famous in some circles, I guess, wherein one of the ancient Britons, one of the Picts, is it the Picts?
The Bodecius crew, Queen Bodecius crew, They were first visited by the Christian missionaries under Rome, and they went, the Christian missionaries went, at least this is how the tale goes, this is the Beowulf crew,
but the missionaries go through and tell them about life and death and heaven and hell and so on, and at least according to the folklore of the victors, so it's probably not true, but it's an interesting story nonetheless.
One of the early sort of barbaric British leaders says, well, this is interesting, he says, you know, because...
We've sort of viewed life in our philosophy as it's like a room and there's a window on either side.
And it's like a bird flying through a room.
That's how we have viewed life in our thinking, in our way of thinking.
It's just voom, into the room, out of the room, and we don't think about anything.
And what you've now opened our eyes to is the value and the possibility of looking at...
What is outside the room?
It's a very neat way of putting it, I think, but that's sort of the idea.
So you have these storytellers who begin to make up plausible, convincing, entertaining, enjoyable, exciting, rich stories full of meaning, the only drawback being that they're completely false.
So you get these storytellers who displace those who are scientists or who have a scientific bend to them, And they begin to explain where everything came from.
And this process not only solves the person of average intellect's need for meaning and a purpose and a sense of grandeur and so on, and answers for questions that they have.
So people look up in the constellations and they say, why are the constellations there?
And they say, well, some guy who's a little deranged and a good storyteller comes along and says, Well, it's because the great bear fought the great salmon, and then the great salmon bit him on the ass, and he jumped up into the sky and was hit with 12 flaming spears that now stuck into the sky.
You can't see his hide, but you can still see the flaming spears.
It's all just made-up bullshit, but it gives them an answer that at least they can use to stop their children from asking more questions.
But it doesn't do anything but satisfy the most transient and prurient kind of desire for sort of, quote, knowledge.
But with the answering of these tales comes a kind of cosmic purpose and comes a kind of divinity or idea of who organize things.
And this, of course, naturally arises because of the problem that we talked about earlier.
In the podcasts on agnosticism, that you either have infinite regression, which is an acceptance of infinity, or you accept infinity.
But somewhere, the line has to be drawn.
Now, in science, the line is drawn in the methodology, not in the conclusions.
This is something that is very important to understand.
In science, the line in the sand between truth and falsehood is drawn in the methodology, not in the conclusions.
So in mathematics, there's no line in the sand which says this theory is, you know, forever true.
Let's not bother with mathematics.
That gets a little more complicated.
In physics, nobody ever says this theory is now true forever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen. They have to say this theory is true, conditional upon the data, the logic, the information, the experimentation, the results, the empiricism, and so on, the evidence that we have.
So, science, the line in the sand between truth and falsehood in science is not the conclusions, but the methodology, just as it is in logic and so on.
Now, in Storyville, right, in madcap, lunatic Storyville, those kinds of explanations to the origins of things, where is the line in the sand?
Where is the line in the sand that says...
Here's the end of the story.
Well, of course, it's the never-ending story, right?
I mean, and so there really is no line in the sand.
And I mentioned it this morning, and I think it's worth repeating.
I guess maybe you heard hearing these in sequence, but nonetheless, in case in the general babbling brook of language you've forgotten this, in the realm of...
Oh, one tangent too many...
Waiting for the brain to kick up the things which I need.
Give me the things...
You know, it's funny, I'm saying this morning, and saying it's oh so recent, and if I hadn't talked about how recent it was, it would actually be on the tip of my tongue.
Right now, as we speak.
Alright, so... Rewind, where were we?
We're talking about the British guys...
Alright, I guess I'll just edit this bit out.
In the middle, for some reason my brain has completely ceased.
I can't think of what's going down.
Ah yes, there we go. So this morning we were talking about the turtles, right?
So it's elephants sit on top of, I don't know, a Sasquatch sit on top of a Yeti and a unicorn and a bag of clams.
And then there's turtles, right?
And so this is the story. But then the problem is, of course, that because the line in the sand is in the conclusions and not in the process, in fact, there is no process other than vague believability and odd kinds of passion, Where do you draw the line in religious stories between truth and falsehood?
Well, you can't, other than through dogma and violence and punishment.
So the answer that always has to come out of religion when you say, well, what are the turtles sitting on?
Somebody just says, it's turtles all the way down, right?
You just do, well, of course, okay, so that doesn't really answer the question.
So in something like science or philosophy, where there's a perpetual exploration of and examination of truth, there's a wonderful methodology.
It's a never-ending journey, but there's a line in the sand every step that you take between truth and falsehood.
But in religious ideas, no such line exists.
And so, where do you draw the line in religion between what is true and what is false?
Well, you can't. This is the interesting thing about the storyteller, that he goes on and he says, I have an answer for this.
Why is there stars in the sky while the flaming spears hit the bear pinned against the black jet of night and so on.
As long as he keeps it sort of vague and so on.
But the problem is that he's claiming to have an answer.
And then somebody says, well, how did you know?
And he says, well, it came to me in a vision.
So as soon as you start making up stuff, Then you have a great deal of difficulty convincing people as to why your version of things should be better, right?
So, if you're a storyteller, you make, you know, one of these bullshit artists who tells people the way the world works and is just sort of making it up.
A priest, fundamentally. The problem is that a better storyteller is always coming along.
A storyteller with a better and more exciting and so on, a better soap opera of reality is going to come along.
Or it just could be the case that you get a skeptic.
So somebody says, where did the stars come from?
And you say, well, flaming spears on the bear hide and crap like that.
Then somebody's going to say, well, how did you know?
And it's going to say, well, I had a dream.
And then someone else is going to say, or the person who's asking you might say, you know, it's interesting because I had a dream that it was quite the opposite.
I had a dream that it was, you know, nearly infinitely burning flaming hydrogen slash helium slash burning fire gas bags that floated in the sky and had been around for about, you know, 20 billion years and so on.
I mean, you can try and make that person laugh, or somebody could come up with another story that, I don't know, that we're living inside a bowling ball and there are cracks on the outside and that's where the light comes through and we are rotating towards the pins of infinity or something like that.
Somebody could just come up with some other story.
And steal your thunder, steal your bread.
So you have to find a way to end up with a monopoly on your story.
You want to be believed you're a good storyteller and so on.
So how do you get a monopoly on your story?
This is the genesis of religion.
People need an answer.
They want an answer. They want meaning and so on.
Especially because their lives way back then are pathetic and horribly meaningless.
Just avoiding the tigers and trying to get the fruit and guarding your young and watching them die.
Just pitiful, barely above animal existences.
And so the storyteller then has this problem that other people are going to come along with better stories or somebody's just going to say bullshit to him.
Like, he just made stuff up.
Here, I'll make something up.
How do we know that yours is true versus what I'm making up?
We all have dreams.
We all have theories.
How do we know that yours is true?
So this is the grave problem that the storyteller has.
Now, so far, the leader has looked upon the storyteller with a sort of amused indifference, right?
The storyteller keeps people entertained, keeps them from thinking about, hey, why is this guy our leader and why is he the silverback who gets to mate with all of the women or whatever, right?
And so it's been sort of amused indifference and, you know, hey, I don't mind sitting at the edge of it and listening to a good tale.
But... When somebody comes along, and of course, this is the first inkling of the scientific method, right?
The first inkling of the scientific method is, how do you know what you know?
How do you know that it's true? How do you know what you know is true?
What criteria that is not subjective, that is not just, ooh, I had a dream, because hey, everybody has dreams, right?
And of course, as people become slightly more rational, then they still have insane people around them, and so they still know all of this kind of silly stuff.
That goes on. So they now have a differentiation between mental health and mental illness to a very small degree.
Like there are some genuinely insane people.
And so they really do have a difference of idea.
I don't know if monkeys are insane or go insane and whether other monkeys notice it or whatever.
But it's an interesting question because if they do, then they have some criteria that a subjective...
Belief or a subjective, like somebody who's the village idiot who sort of runs around squawking, is obviously not doing too well.
Although he may believe he's a chicken, he's really not a chicken.
So subjective mental states don't translate to objective truth, right?
I mean, this is something that's going on in this sort of, well, throughout all human history, but comes to a forefront here.
So the storyteller is obviously kind of insane and psychotic, but, you know, charming and good use of language and a good, you know, entertaining and so on.
And the storyteller is then going to be challenged by somebody who's a little bit more rational.
And the storyteller might say, hey, you know, these are just stories.
I don't mean anything. It's just me having fun.
But then he's going to be put back to work in the fields.
He's not going to be thought of as special.
And people are going to be kind of irritated at him, right?
The liar always wants to have you believe that it's true.
And he never wants to be caught lying.
So then what happens is the storyteller, in order to maintain...
His story and the validity of his story in order to elevate his story above everyone else who may be a better storyteller or have different ideas and for God's sake let's elevate it above the scientific prototype guy who's asking for a criteria of truth and falsehood and is staring at the edge of the fire with skeptical and scornful eyes saying, oh come on, what a load of nonsense.
I mean, it's fine for children, I guess, but telling adults this sort of stuff, why don't you get a real job?
As we often feel about those who are bad philosophers or priests, it's like, God, just get out of people's heads, stay away from the kids, and just get a real goddamn job.
So what the storyteller has to do is the storyteller has to reach outside of himself for validation.
So, if I'm the bullshit storyteller guy and I say, X, and you say, how do you know?
I say, I know because the great spirit told me.
So, the bear is thrown up against the sky and flaming spears are stuck in his fur and those become the stars.
How do you know? Well, the bear told me.
And at this moment, everyone is...
I would imagine, you know, this is all conjecture, of course, right?
But an entertaining story, nonetheless.
See why I'm so hostile towards storytellers?
Anyway. And then there's a moment here, right?
There's a huge moment here wherein the universe comes alive for people.
The universe leaps into life.
It shakes off its dusty inert atoms and begins to dance in people's minds.
Because now... There is a great consciousness outside of themselves that is validating what the storyteller says.
And when the storyteller invents the objective proof of his story that is a consciousness outside of his own mind that verifies that story, then of course he has some problems.
Because he then has to elevate himself as special.
Because the stories and the dreams and the whatever, whatever, they only come to him.
They only come to him.
So if he says, well, I had a dream and I got a vision and the bear was thrown up against the sky and steers were stuck in spears, flaming spears were stuck in its flesh and so on and so on.
Then other people are going to say, well, I had a vision of something else.
And he's going to have to say, well, you're wrong.
Because my visions are the right visions.
My visions are correct.
And where's the proof? The proof is that I had them.
And other people are going to say, well, I had other visions, right?
And he's then going to have to say, well, those visions come from bad spirits.
My visions come from the good spirit, the one good spirit or the group of good spirits.
And your visions come from the bad spirit.
So now we have created a consciousness without matter outside the human mind, and we've also split it into good and evil.
All this to keep a job telling stories.
Isn't that amazing? This is what priests did before there were sitcoms.
They could make money telling stories that way.
Aaron Sorkin and so on. But this moment now becomes very interesting to the leader, to the sort of, quote, political leader of the tribe.
Because now what's happened is a group of specialness That has nothing to do with any measurable characteristic.
Nothing to do with any measurable characteristic.
So we were talking about at the beginning that the priest, sorry, that the military leader, the chief of the tribe Can't base his domination on physical strength alone because other physically stronger youths will come along and he will get old and feeble and he doesn't want to have happen to him what he did to others.
So he's not satisfied with the whole strength slash lineage argument for the reason why he is in charge.
So then...
Is that any better? Ooh, a little better.
Look at that. We have advanced proto-lighting.
Da-da, da-da-da-da-da.
Ooh, look at that.
So... Now that the storyteller has been cornered by the first whiffs of rationality and proof, the storyteller has to invent a larger consciousness outside of himself that validates and ratifies the stories that he's been telling.
And he also must invent and does invent evil consciousnesses outside of everyone who give the wrong visions to other people.
So now the leader, and that makes the storyteller special, right?
Only the storyteller gets this communication from From the Great Spirit.
And only the storyteller has been chosen by the Great Spirit to hear the words of wisdom for all mankind, and everyone else who gets visions are evil and the devil.
And of course, this is why you end up with the Salem Witch Trials and so on, the Inquisition and all of the other bloody murders of religions throughout the world.
My vision, which is just bullshit, is superior to your vision because I am spoken to by the good god and you are spoken to by the evil god and so into the fire with you, especially Joe Science Guy.
So now the political leader, the tribal chieftain, he really sits up and begins to pay attention to the storyteller because now the storyteller has a very special power Which is that the storyteller is now a unique and wonderful and special human being simply for existing.
And obviously having some characteristic of being able to tell a good story and so on.
But the human being is special simply for existing.
Now this, of course, is the missing piece of the puzzle that the tribal chieftain has been looking for for basically millennia.
For epochs, if not, in fact, eons.
Because now the political leader can sit down and parlay with, mosey on down, and have a powwow with the storyteller.
And the basic deal that is struck is the tribal chieftain says, you tell everyone...
That I am the God-given political leader of them all, and in return, I will make them pay you.
And if you don't do it, I'm going to kill you.
Or something to those effect, right?
An accident will befall you, right?
And so the storyteller, he's really getting in deep now, right?
So he just started off by telling some, you know, singing some sweet bullshit around a campfire.
And now he's made the claim that it's universally true.
He's made a claim that he's true.
It's true because his visions are true relative to other people's because only he has connection with the one true God and that everyone else who has visions are evil and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And so basically it's just like step by step into the quagmire of a living hell.
And now he's basically told such a good story that the leader wants in, the tribal chieftain wants in and says, you validate my claim to tribal leadership and I will get you food and a nice place in the cave, throw you a couple of women your way, the first ever recorded cases of groupies, and if you don't, I'm going to kill you.
So now, what's the storyteller going to do?
And we're trying to give the storyteller as much sympathy as possible.
He's just trying to get by.
And it's a hell of a lot more fun telling stories than it is going to work and hunting and there's danger out there and you'd rather be home practicing your dance steps and boiling up some bizarre soups to make people well and putting on your shaman dancing boogie outfit and so on.
I mean, that's a lot more fun, right?
And we all know this, right? The free domain radio boards are a lot more fun than most people's jobs, certainly mine.
But... It's much more fun to do that, and he's just, you know, but it's kind of getting out of hand, because there's competition, which he squelches with this outside God influence, and then the leaders all over him to validate.
So, you know, the guy kind of got in, the man or the woman kind of got in over his head without a really good, without sort of forethought.
This is just how it all evolves.
And so then what happens is the next step occurs wherein the storyteller who has created the good and evil external consciousnesses, agencies of infinite virtue and vice, the gods and devils, The storyteller now puts his gods and devils in the service of the leader.
So now, of course, the soul of the god on earth is the priest, and the fist of the god on earth is the chieftain.
And now what's happened is you've created these two classes of people.
And again, this is just step by step, kind of wanting to maximize your resources and minimize your effort.
This is kind of what happens.
Now what's happened and it's quite amazing is you've created two classes of people who are unapproachable and can never be defined with relation to anyone else.
So you have some short, fat, ugly priest And he's taller and handsomer and more powerful, more handsome, more powerful than anyone else, because he's got this special connection with God.
And similarly, you have this warrior who is older than And who is becoming more feeble, but he is still a representative in spirit and in flesh and in fist of an all-powerful, omniscient God and so on.
So in this kind of way, you separate the priest and now the aristocracy or the king.
You separate The priest and the king, from any comparative criteria with ordinary humanity, now they are special because God speaks to them and the king is chosen by God to lead his people.
This is all over the Old Testament.
This isn't stuff that I'm making up.
You can read this wherever. Ever since written language, this has been the general.
There's the priestly class, the storytellers, and there is the military, the dictator class, the aristocracy, the kings.
And these two classes of people are completely, totally, and utterly beyond, outside, above, not in the same class as everybody else.
And we have this now, too.
I mean, this is exactly how things work now.
I mean, we have a priestly class called intellectuals who worship a false god called democracy and tell you that you're free when you're not.
And we have all the same stuff.
I mean, there's religion in certain aspects, but it can be substituted with the class or the race or the social good or, you know, the Republicans or the Democrats or the Tories or whatever, right?
But you have all of these. And these people, they have rights and powers and abilities that have nothing to do with anybody else, right?
So George Bush can have his hands on the key of nuclear weapons, but then, of course, everyone says, when the idea of anarchy comes up, well, how on earth could you have people who have control of nuclear weapons?
It's like, well, we have one, and where we have one, we might as well have more, because you can't logically distinguish between these things.
So that to me is a sort of very strong and, you know, I think somewhat credible approach to the foundations, to the genesis of gods, the foundations of religion.
And basically these twin parasites of violent leaders and bullshit artists have ruled mankind since the dawn of time, or at least certainly since the dawn of recorded history.
And for a brief time, there was a diminishment in their power from the end of the religious wars in the late 18th century until the late 19th century, about a hundred years, 75 to 100 years.
There was a brief diminishment in that power and influence.
And of course, all they've been trying to do is, I mean, generation after generation, has been trying to recover and restore that power ever since.
And so...
I think it's important to understand that we're sliding back that way now.
We have all this nonsense that people make up and these stories about we're free and we get to vote and we have rights and all of this stuff that people make up.
It's all the most errant nonsense.
It's not empirical. It's not testable.
It's not verifiable in any manner.
And there are nearly infinite examples to the contrary in this kind of area.
But that seems to me is a central story of religion and the military, which is the sort of two co-joined aspects, which create a specialness.
And the specialness may not have to be genetic.
It doesn't have to be hereditary.
So you vote in a new person who's now Mr.
President, like he's changed his nature or something like that, and now he has all of these amazing and special powers.
Which, of course, can never be reproduced for anyone else.
Only he has these powers of this magic ability to wage war and to order people around and to invoke the military and invoke the police and change the laws and travel through time and warp dimensions, it would seem.
And it's all the purest nonsense.
But all that's really being claimed or all that's really been...
is being proposed in this sort of scenario and all that they really care about Is for you to stand, or rather sit where you are, and to gaze up in wonder at these thunder gods who stride like a colossus from one end of the world to another.
These giants of men, these towers of intellect, these paragons of virtue, and so on.
That all they want you to do is to sit there with your mouth Wide open and stare upward at these man-mountains who bestride the world like a colossus, as Shakespeare writes.
And they want you to stare at these people and not think that you are a piece of toenail grit at the bottom of their foot, that you can't compare yourself to them in any way,
shape, or form. And if they can get you to believe that, you cannot compare yourself to these people, that they are a different class, a different group, a different species, and not even a different species, an entirely different class of life form, singularly godlike life forms.
If human beings can get you to do that, then their total cost of ownership goes down.
If the cows worship the farmer, then the farmer doesn't need any fences.
He gets to save that whole price.
So you'd rather invest in getting the cows to worship him.
And to, you know, kill themselves and provide him with meat than to build fences and to get electricity running through them and so on, right?
So, worship is a form of fencing, right?
I mean, and so when we...
And it doesn't... You can even hate these people.
It's not necessarily worship.
You can even hate George Bush.
But still, you look at George Bush through a lens of power and a lens of elevated possibilities and elevated power...
And of course, that's really all that this nonsense is supposed to do, right?
Mr. President, you know, I mean, the station, the office, the flag folding, don't let it touch the ground, the tears, the nobility, the patriotism, it's all designed to basically not to elevate others, not to elevate others, because you can't elevate others.
You can't conceivably make George Bush sound intelligent, other than by writing, I guess, writing all his speeches, but we all have seen him when he's unscripted.
I mean, the man's a doddering idiot.
And vain and pompous and snarky and supercilious and all these.
You know, he's not exactly a paragon of human achievement, right?
So you can't elevate that guy.
And you can't elevate Henry Kissinger into some sort of moral or intellectual god.
I mean, he's just a weaselly little power player.
He's just like the Medicis. But you can't elevate other people.
And the whole purpose of this stuff is not to elevate other people.
The purpose of religion is not to elevate priests.
The purpose of political science is not to elevate politicians.
It is rather simply this.
It is to diminish you.
The entire purpose of all of this stuff is not to elevate others, but it is to diminish you.
And all that is required to break the whole cycle is not for you to pull other people down, because they're not above you.
The purpose of...
My philosophy, at least, I mean, I'm not going to, it's not vain, I'm not trying to say it's the only, but what I'm trying to do is not to get you to pull down other people, but rather to get you to elevate yourself to your proper stature.
True self-confidence is not stepping on the backs of other people, especially moral and intellectual midgets like those in power.
The purpose of philosophy is to get you to see the reality of the world in a clear and consistent and logical and empirical manner.
And logically and empirically, you're no worse than George Bush.
I would bet that you're a thousand million times better than George Bush in so many ways because he's been corrupted and shriveled and broken up by power.
But The purpose of philosophy, and this is of course why I focus on your personal relationships and so on, is not to break down other people.
It's not to reveal how small George Bush is.
It is to reveal to you how large you are and to break this worshipping upwards that we all have from our parents, from our priests, from our teachers, from our bosses, from our gods, from our leaders, from our oh whoever, the cops, the military.
There's this constant yearning, burning, horrifying, self-crumpling, self-effacing, self-erasing.
Blank-eyed, worshipful stance that we all have.
Because it's all scar tissue. It's not innate to our nature.
It's just how we're broken when we're young.
But it's simply to point out that you are as large as the world.
And there's nobody out there who should be able to tell you what to do because only you know your own needs.
Only you know who you are.
But most fundamentally, because there's nobody out there who's so much better than you.
So I hope that this is helpful.
We'll talk about this a little bit more on the Sunday afternoon chat, freedomradio.com.
I appreciate donations. If you could throw a few shekels my way, I'd appreciate it.
And I will talk to you Sunday, 4 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time, freedomradio.com.
▲
Export Selection